[APAC-Discuss] METRICS

Thu Nov 28 16:16:21 UTC 2013

I believe one of the most important metrics component should be built
on the fact that if a member suggests something, how many of those
suggestions were actually accepted and incorporated into the system.

One small example is that I've proposed individual membership in the
past during 2010, created the paperwork suggesting the policy reform
in the APRALO articles, presented it and then silence. This would have
enhanced participation, inclusion of more productive talent and people
that are sensitive about ICANN and IG related issues. Such talent thus
has to move under a narrower scope into the ncuc/ncsg and APRALO loses
out.

Somehow the belief that only groups can represent the rights of the
users is a fantasy. For example, in the technical community and most
in ISOC circles, most of the members in a recognized ALS are not
actually CS or information rights activists but people with corporate
day jobs and of companies that actually should fall under contracted
parties ac/oc's in ICANN.

The value that comes into such an organizational system are actually
the members, the system itself cannot come up with ideas and transform
the ideas into workable actions.

Participation collapses when member ideas are not viewed as valuable
input and organizations that don't believe in agility to change and
adapt to round the clock innovation and improvements basically fall
short on rationality for existence and support in the future.

If the participation in meetings and tele-cons are an evaluative
criteria for calculating value for money, something is seriously wrong
with ICANN and the people who are attempting to address such issues by
adopting such a weak and lame course of action.

KPIs are measured against activities and participation in telecons and
meetings are not such an input or expected outcome.

The indicators can be established on a the basis of number of members
present and number of comments, suggestions and recommendations
received during any calls/meetings and the actions were taken on them.
The second level would be number of policy comments requested by ICANN
and the number of members that voted on them, the time taken to make
comments or recommendations, total number of policy requests for
comments and number of comments made to policy requests.

Its actually a very simple and straightforward thing. List down all
the things that ALAC and its members do. Against those activities a
scorecard can be developed and benchmarked against other AC/OC work.

I'll think more about this.

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim
<rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone.
>
> I like Ali's input on metrics about leadership of Working Groups for ALAC
> members. I would also suggest co-chairing of WG between an ALAC Member and
> an At-Large community member. This will help build collaborative skills and
> capacity along the way.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rinalia
> On Nov 27, 2013 11:17 PM, "Maureen Hilyard" <hilyard at oyster.net.ck> wrote:
>
>> Thank you Ali. This breadth of feedback is very much appreciated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maureen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Ali AlMeshal [mailto:dralialmeshal at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 27 November 2013 12:45 a.m.
>> To: Maureen Hilyard
>> Cc: Karaitiana Taiuru; APRALO; METRICS
>> Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
>>
>>
>>
>> Good day Maureen,
>>
>>    First of all we have always to but in mind as your correctly stated that
>> this is a volunteer work from the members, but on the other hand I do agree
>> that up to certain extent there should be a fair KPI’s in place to evaluate
>> the performance of ALAC members.
>>
>> Also I am quite sure that selected or nominated ALAC members for these
>> leadership positions were based on their knowledge , commitment and
>> experience as well as high performance otherwise they will not be part of
>> the team.
>>
>>
>>
>>    Hence measuring criteria would always be much clearer and effective if
>> it
>> is set for Quantitative factors rather than Qualitative once.
>>
>>
>>
>> So having said that then I would like to address the following:
>>
>>
>>
>> o   Attending meetings by it self is not a goal or objective therefore it
>> can not be part of the measuring criteria independently.
>>
>> o   Also participation and contribution to the meeting discussion can not
>> be
>> evaluated as a performance measure
>>
>>
>>
>>   Thereafter to have a process in place that gives an indication of the
>> member performance I would suggest the following
>>
>>
>>
>> o   ALAC members should be assigned to Chair a WG’s
>>
>> §  With this type of assignment the member will logically be accountable
>> and
>> responsible of a set deliverables  that he/she have to achieve, and this
>> can
>> be measured and evaluated for the following set of KPI’s
>>
>> ·         Time to deliver
>>
>> ·         Commitment
>>
>> ·         Team working
>>
>> ·         Developing others (member of the group)
>>
>> ·         Others
>>
>>
>>
>> o    ALAC members and chair of RALO’s jointly should be responsible for
>> engaging the ALS’s in work and activities related to the rejoin at least
>> and
>> should provide a monthly call report on this.
>>
>> §  This is different activity from the RALO monthly call; this should be
>> done separately to reach out the ALS’s through a pre-plan agenda and time
>> frame.
>>
>> §   The objective is to get in touch with ALS’s members outside the
>> official
>> call and tries to understand their needs and requirements and also will be
>> a
>> good tool maybe to get them engage in if they are not active. So this is
>> more of OUTREACH on a small scale and more of direct communication.
>>
>>
>>
>> Should you need any clarification then please let me know by email or a
>> call, I will be more than happy to discuss.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Maureen Hilyard <hilyard at oyster.net.ck>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you KT for your comments and suggestions. These are all very helpful.
>>
>> Regards
>> Maureen
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: apac-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
>>
>> Karaitiana Taiuru
>> Sent: Monday, 25 November 2013 12:12 p.m.
>> To: 'APRALO'
>> Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
>>
>> These are my thoughts based on not been an ALAC member (nor do I have time
>> to).
>>
>> I would support a more closer monitoring approach to the ALAC performance
>> review and would like to see the evaluations distributed to the relevant
>> RALO's as we are the ones who nominate and put our trust in our
>> representatives to provide our views and then to report back to us.
>>
>> I would expect that participation in all meetings, emails and Work Groups
>> would be at the very minimum 90%. There are so many issues at present it
>> would be hard not to have a voice at a meeting.
>>
>> Saying this, I would also expect that any new ALAC appointments are
>> mentored
>> and giving an appropriate transition period and were made to feel
>> comfortable to ask for help.  Some cultural and language barriers may also
>> exist and should be considered.
>>
>> If people are under-performing, then perhaps a mechanism of someone talking
>> to them in a non threating manner to see if there is any assistance
>> required
>> etc.
>>
>> Perhaps too, some way of recognition for the long hours and dedication may
>> also be a motivation. This is likely to be more of a RALO initiative
>> though.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: apac-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maureen
>> Hilyard
>> Sent: Sunday, 24 November 2013 5:52 p.m.
>> To: APRALO
>> Subject: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
>>
>> APRALO colleagues
>>
>> As Siranush had informed you already, I am on a working group (headed by
>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr)  that is looking at measuring the performance of ALAC
>> members (as expected in the ALAC Rules of Procedure). We are later to be
>> looking at ALSes and RALOs.
>>
>> It is an extremely difficult thing to do when:
>> * the people in these positions are volunteers who have offered to do this
>> work out of the goodness of their hearts - how do you measure their
>> contribution to a task that has been set?
>> * the Board and Management are becoming more vocal about getting value for
>> money spent within the system - it costs a lot of money to bring the
>> committees of the ICANN system together for each meeting. three times a
>> year. They rightfully  want to know that they are getting their money's
>> worth.
>> * it is very difficult to ascertain what METRICS are appropriate to measure
>> each particular type of performance (attendance? contribution? value of
>> contribution? others?)
>>
>> As ALSes you elect your APRALO representatives on the ALAC (me and Holly)
>> and although Raf has been appointed to the ALAC as and APRALO NOMCOM
>> candidate - the expectations should be the same.
>>
>> Therefore I'd really like to hear not only about WHAT performance criteria
>> should be evaluated but also HOW it might be appropriately measured. I
>> would
>> like to use the advice of the ALSes to put together an evaluative process
>> which could help us evaluate all the groups we have been tasked to
>> evaluate.
>>
>> This is what we are looking at, at the moment:
>>
>> 1. Do ALAC members attend all the meetings they should?  Some attend the
>> face to face meetings, but not the online meetings. ICANN is not looking at
>> these candidates very favourably.
>>
>> 2. Do ALAC members who attend the meetings actually contribute anything to
>> the meetings? Some attend meetings but they don't say anything - what value
>> do they give? Some log into teleconference meetings, but because they don't
>> contribute anything, it is difficult to know whether they actually
>> listening?)
>>
>> 3. Do ALAC members participate on working groups? We have lots of members
>> who volunteer for a working group, and never turn up for meetings to do the
>> work. Its the same people every time doing the work .
>>
>> There may be other questions you may want to ask. Please do...
>>
>> Very importantly, HOW can we more effectively evaluate performance - what
>> do
>> you use in your workplace?
>>
>> Let me know.. I'd love to hear from you.
>>
>> Maureen
>> _______________________________________________
>> APAC-Discuss mailing list
>> APAC-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
>>
>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> APAC-Discuss mailing list
>> APAC-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
>>
>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> APAC-Discuss mailing list
>> APAC-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
>>
>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Ali AlMeshal
>>
>> Bahrain Internet Society - BIS
>>
>> Board Member & Director of Strategic Alliances
>>
>> Professional Public speaker in ICT and e-Business
>>
>> Payment Industry Expert Advisor
>>
>> Mobile: +973 39440025
>>
>> Skype: alialmeshal
>>
>> email: dralialmeshal at gmail.com
>>
>>           ali.almeshal at bis.org.bh
>>
>> www.bis.org.bh <http://www.bis.org.bh/>
>>
>> Twitter :@internetBH
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> APAC-Discuss mailing list
>> APAC-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
>>
>> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> APAC-Discuss mailing list
> APAC-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
>
> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa